Help me understand. SPA uses very old plane designs right? CPA, old designs also or not? I know a bit about imac. What else is there? Imac to my ignorance seems to have the most participation but I could be wrong.

Just wanting to understand my options as I've started practicing the IMAC basic but I can't say I have any interest in the old-style planes of SPA. Are there other pattern contents besides these I'm missing?

The biggest thing that separates the SPC from the CPA in focus is large variations from the original design that completely change the airplane from what it originaly was. The SPA allows only designs existing up to the year 1976 and will not allow the use of retracts or tuned pipes- even though they were originally used in these designs in 1976 and earlier. I am sure someone else can pipe in here to represent the SPA better than I, but -I am most familiar with the CPA- being a regional director for the organization.

The CPA focuses on pre-non-turnaround aircraft... Until recently the cut-off for that design was 1996, but there is talk of including newer designs with the focus of the term "vintage" being somewhat subjective. The point is to have a great time.

Both fly the original One Pass At a Time pattern.... Both are very inclusive regarding participation, as I understand. We won't turn you down just because you don't have a classic bird to fly at the time.

The SPA has been going at this longer, but both ideas are starting to take off and gain traction with Classic Pattern contests growing all the time- across the nation.

You may have noticed a few released model options recently that are a result of the resurgence of classic pattern flying such as the Hanger 9 Phoenix 7; the GP Dity Birty; Classic RC's release of the Taurus, King Altair, Orien, and Simla kits; the new Curare release..... etc, just to name a few. It is growing and gaining traction.

IMAC does seem to be large, and the current AMA Pattern seems to be falling.

The Mini-IMAC as presented here has not started yet, but this could change very soon. All it will take is one contest to start it off!

Helpful?

Brian

Originally Posted by Ilikebipes

The biggest thing that separates the SPC from the CPA in focus is large variations from the original design that completely change the airplane from what it originaly was. The SPA allows only designs existing up to the year 1976 and will not allow the use of retracts or tuned pipes- even though they were originally used in these designs in 1976 and earlier. I am sure someone else can pipe in here to represent the SPA better than I, but -I am most familiar with the CPA- being a regional director for the organization.

The CPA focuses on pre-non-turnaround aircraft... Until recently the cut-off for that design was 1996, but there is talk of including newer designs with the focus of the term "vintage" being somewhat subjective. The point is to have a great time.

Both fly the original One Pass At a Time pattern.... Both are very inclusive regarding participation, as I understand. We won't turn you down just because you don't have a classic bird to fly at the time.

The SPA has been going at this longer, but both ideas are starting to take off and gain traction with Classic Pattern contests growing all the time- across the nation.

You may have noticed a few released model options recently that are a result of the resurgence of classic pattern flying such as the Hanger 9 Phoenix 7; the GP Dity Birty; Classic RC's release of the Taurus, King Altair, Orien, and Simla kits; the new Curare release..... etc, just to name a few. It is growing and gaining traction.

IMAC does seem to be large, and the current AMA Pattern seems to be falling.

The Mini-IMAC as presented here has not started yet, but this could change very soon. All it will take is one contest to start it off!

Helpful?

Brian

Yes, helpful. Little confused on the one-pass at a time thing. I assume that means you don't have turnaround in the pattern? Seems hard to do unless the patterns are small?

Mini-imac seems a no-go at the moment based on what they have said. Not because they don't like the idea, just because has not managed to attract enough participation. Still like the idea myself though.

CPA would be good to learn a little more about. Is this the main website?

http://www.classicpatternassociation.com/

If so, seems dead as 2012 events were never even posted there.

rpstar,
You're right in the middle of SPA country. The eastern US, particularly south east, is a hot bed of SPA activity. If you'll take a look at some of the new ARFs and kits available I'll bet you'll find one to your liking. Engine size is restricted to .65 or less two stroke and .91 or less four stroke. It's fairly comparatively inexpensive to get in to an SPA bird and the maneuvers aren't that difficult in the Novice class.

http://seniorpattern.com/

Ref. you question about "turn-around" ....in IMAC all 10 maneuvers are done in sequence. Once you enter "the box" you are required to complete all 10 before leaving "the box". In SPA, you enter the box, do one maneuver, and exit the box. Then turn around, enter the box and make your next maneuver etc. If you'll look at the sequences posted on each web site it may make more sense to you.

RJ

PS, IMAC has the most contests by far. We had 11 this year in the So. Central region alone. Average attendance is approx. 20 pilots spread among 5 classes. The Basic class is by far the most populated. We had our region season finally at our club here in Ft. Worth last weekend and had 17 pilots. Everything starts again in April.

I apologize for momentarily closing this thread.... I didn't actualy mean to lock it up. No problem intended.

Brian

After re-reading this thread and thinking a bit about it here is a loose proposal of what I think Mimi-Mac could be. This is one man's idea that is open to being discussed and torn apart at will, by anybody...

1) Mini-Mac shall be three classes. We'll call then A, B, and C for the time being. "C" is the lowest/easiest class and "A" is the highest most difficult.

2) ANY size plane may be flown with the upper limit being 30 cc. (wing span & weight open for debate). Rule #3 may solve this issue???

3) The airframe shall be a copy of an aerobatic full scale of past or present. (deviations from scale open for debate).

4) Sequences will be derived from the Aresti catalog similar to IMAC. (You could just use the current IMAC schedule).

5) C class will fly a non turnaround sequence. (Give the new guy a chance to gather his wits between maneuvers). B & A class will be flown like IMAC.

6) You can move up a class at will, but must make a request to move back down.

7) Simple scoring system 1 - 10. (I see a lot of debate here)

8) Registered pilots will be required judge in a class not their own. If there are not enough registered pilots to make up a panel of judges for each class, pilots can judge their own class. (Be fair as your turn in the air will be coming up) This could be an issue but I think could work out OK.

I realize this leaves a lot of holes but it is just a list to spur some debate Keeping the rules a simple as possible may spur some club level activity. Make the event almost a fun fly level of competition (at least in the C class) to encourage pilots to attend and fly. Low entry fees, simple scoring etc. If you can get some clubs involved, it might just grow in a particular region and open up the door for pilots to move up to IMAC.... or just be satisfied where they are at.

OK, my flame suit is on, so fire away

Ken

Ken, I only see a couple things of issue but they are rather large. The first being the scoring. You would have to have a K factor. The more difficult maneuvers have to have the rewards of higher possible points. I just don't see judging a split ess the same as you would a cross box humpty bump with 1/4 rolls.

The second is the judging. Most guys just don't know how to judge. That's not a dig or anything, it's just that they need to be taught what to look for. The worst thing you would want to deal with is someone coming to you ( The CD ) with a score sheet showing one judge giving him a zero and another giving him an 8 and then have the judge handing out the zero not be able to explain without a doubt why the zero was given.

Originally Posted by exf3bguy

The second is the judging. Most guys just don't know how to judge. That's not a dig or anything, it's just that they need to be taught what to look for. The worst thing you would want to deal with is someone coming to you ( The CD ) with a score sheet showing one judge giving him a zero and another giving him an 8 and then have the judge handing out the zero not be able to explain without a doubt why the zero was given.

Maybe having a required class on judging for each contestant would be a good idea, it would help scores to be fair, and help the pilots realize what they are trying to accomplish when they are doing a particular maneuver. Ideally, of course, would be having non competing judges, but educating the judges either way should be the most important thing to make the competitions fair.

Like I said, my proposal leaves a LOT of holes. I see this starting at a club level and moving up from there. Every contest that relies on "judges" starts some place. I'm sure the very first IMAC contest was fraught with judging problems. IMAC now has a very comprehensive program to train judges. Something they should be proud of!

I proposed the 1-10 system to KISS. All this is coming from a simple mind, Oh wait, you have to have a mind for it to be simple, I've seem to have lost mine Like I said LOTS of holes And I said "a loose proposal of what I think Mimi-Mac could be".

Ken

You would have to have a K factor. The more difficult maneuvers have to have the rewards of higher possible points. I just don't see judging a split ess the same as you would a cross box humpty bump with 1/4 rolls.

The purpose behind the K factor was to make our playing field equal against guys like Chip Hyde, Mike McConville, Hanno Prettner, etc.... against guys that can beat anyone with one eye closed and 2 hands tied behind their back.

We ought simply judge the manuever against that one particular maneuver. We cannot judge a split ess the same as a humpty bump or a loop. We judge the maneuver by itself on its own merits mintaining continuity. Keeping it simple, on a grading scale of 1-10 is important for me.

3) The airframe shall be a copy of an aerobatic full scale of past or present. (deviations from scale open for debate).

I like this as well. Being mini-IMAC.... scale can be somewhat relative. How about a sort of stand-off scale approach?

Brian

Originally Posted by Ilikebipes

I like this as well. Being mini-IMAC.... scale can be somewhat relative. How about a sort of stand-off scale approach?

Brian

Don't quote me but I think IMAC allows a 10% deviation from "scale". I'm going to stick my foot in my mouth and say any of the sport scale kits or ARF's offered by the various manufactures would be close enough for church work.

ken

This would be nice to see doing what it was designed to do!


http://www.dldesigns.net/cap231b.htm

Beautiful models here! Perfect for Mini-IMAC!

Brian

Originally Posted by Ilikebipes

This would be nice to see doing what it was designed to do!


http://www.dldesigns.net/cap231b.htm

Beautiful models here! Perfect for Mini-IMAC!

Brian

And the prices are within reason also.

The CAPs are nice flying planes. The later 231 & 232 series are not as snap happy as the the older models. But, after all, they are an "aerobatic" model so some snappiness is to be expected! I've had no handling issues with my H9 CAP 232.

Ken

Actually aerobatic airplanes should have no " Snappyness" to them. If you are having that issue then you are running too much elevator throw ( Maybe compensating for nose heavy ) or the model is just too heavy. The old Cap 21 got a bad rep because the GP and Byron kits were very heavy. Nowadays the manufacturers are building lighter airplanes.